muon ionization cooling experiment: u.s. muon accelerator program perspective and approach mark...

Muon Ionization Cooling Experiment:U.S. Muon Accelerator Program

Perspective and Approach

Mark Palmer

May 7, 2013

MICE Resource Loaded Schedule Review (RAL)2

Outline• The U.S. Muon Accelerator Program

– Introduction– U.S. Perspective on MICE

• U.S. Schedule– Status– Assumptions– Ongoing Effort

• U.S. Budget– Status– Assumptions– Ongoing Effort

• Achieving Success with MICEMay 7-8, 2013


MAP: Introduction (I)• MAP Scope

– R&D effort to demonstrate the technologies required for high energy muon accelerator capabilities

– This includes Muon Collider and Neutrino Factory designs and technology

– MAP is charged to produce an assessment of the feasibility of these facilities on the several year timescale – practically speaking, this means by the end of the decade

• Thus MAP Effort Spans– A Broad Design Effort– Support and Development of Multiple Test Facilities

(including MICE)– Multiple Technology Development Thrusts

May 7-8, 2013


MAP: Introduction (II)• MAP is in the process of re-organizing the

US Muon Accelerator R&D structure along Project lines

May 7-8, 2013


MAP: Introduction (III)• MAP Re-organization

– Complete the U.S. MAP project implementation by the conclusion of US FY13• Provide a management structure populated with capable managers

and which provides a clear chain of responsibilities• Provide a Program Management Office to plan, oversee and track the

Program Effort

– Provide a ~6 year execution plan to complete the feasibility assessment for an HEP facility based on Muon Accelerators • Address basic design and technology uncertainties with a multi-faceted

R&D program• Identify critical R&D to be addressed during a subsequent

Technical Design Effort towards Muon Accelerator facilities (if approved)

• Ensure that ongoing activities are executed successfully

May 7-8, 2013


U.S. Perspective on MICE• MICE serves as a demonstration of the principal of

Ionization Cooling– This is a necessary and critical, but not sufficient, demonstration of the

technologies required for developing an accelerator facility to support operation of a Neutrino Factory or Muon Collider

– It is imperative that this experiment reach a successful conclusion

• With respect to MICE, the U.S. program goals are:– Creation of a U.S. MICE Construction Project within MAP which has

clearly defined reporting lines– Preparation of a multi-year resource-loaded plan – that fits within a budget

profile developed in consultation with the U.S. DOE– Integration of the U.S. construction effort into the international construction

effort, with clearly defined interfaces to an international project office– Ensuring sufficient support for the MICE Experimental Collaboration to

accomplish its research goalsMay 7-8, 2013


MICE Construction Project

May 7-8, 2013

P. Garbincius

D. Li

S. Gourlay

A. Bross

H. Witte

TBD (FY14-)


U.S. Schedule: Status (I)

• All major activities now have cost and schedule estimates associated with them– Detailed refinement needed in many cases– It would be reasonable to assume a nominal 30% budget

uncertainty with the present level of estimation– Each construction activity has been loaded with a nominal

contingency (labor and M&S)– More detailed contingency assessments have been

completed for some activities

May 7-8, 2013


U.S. Schedule: Status (II)• The construction schedule identifies critical interface

points– Domestic & International– Interface definitions (and required resources) remain a

source of likely schedule slippage until more planning effort can be applied

• Potential for delays (being actively addressed)– Too many partial FTEs in multi-institutional critical path efforts– Component R&D being carried out during the construction

effort• Ideally the most significant R&D risks would have been retired in

advance of a construction start

May 7-8, 2013


U.S. Schedule: Assumptions (I)

• A construction schedule has been prepared that we believe, in the absence of major contingencies, fits within the expected US budget profile and is roughly consistent with the UK (no-contingency) schedule– Base costs and activity plan (with escalation) integrate to

completion as shown in the MS Project File

• Incorporation of contingency– Analysis: “Production” contingency costs could be integrated

within roughly the same overall time frame (will discuss this further in the budget section)

– Caveat: Integration of “major” contingencies into the plan will incur additional delays (will discuss anticipated impact further in the budget section)

May 7-8, 2013


U.S. Schedule: Assumptions (II)

• Major contingencies: – Sources:

• Component R&D issues • Potential for major supplier disruption

– Impact estimates (time and cost) are being supplied for these risks and they are flagged as risk “milestones” (see U.S. Risk Register)

– Realistically, a significant fraction of the major contingencies will have to be integrated into the actual schedule (and budget profile)!

– Schedule attempts to front-load the effort to understand/mitigate such risks

– However, front-loading of risks for later steps cannot be allowed to significantly delay delivery of the next MICE Experimental Step

May 7-8, 2013


Major Milestones

May 7-8, 2013

SS#2 Ready to Ship – July `13

CCM Prototype Tested and ready to move to the MuCool Test Area (MTA) for Testing with RF in the RFCC_Lite Configuration – April `15

SS#1 Ready to Ship – Sept `13

RFCC#1 Ready to Ship – Aug `16

RFCC#2 Ready to Ship – Nov `17

2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Step IV Shielding Decision – Sept `13


U.S. Schedule: Ongoing Effort• Major Items:

– Identifying the correct team to accomplish each major activity• Can only execute the desired schedules if we have a well-defined team

in place to fully cover the activity• Represents both an execution and management chain issue

– Refining budget and schedule estimates for each major activity

– Improving our assessment of integration requirements• Validating the integration plan• Further assessment of the personnel and M&S requirements

– Reduction/mitigation of “interface” risks– Assessing impacts of surprises (ie, the major contingencies)– Ongoing integration with updated budget profile guidance

May 7-8, 2013


U.S. Budget: Status• The MAP Budget Profile in the US has received

significant attention– We are presently projecting budget increases over the next 2

years which will result in an overall 33% increase over FY12 funding levels by FY15

– This enables us to make a much more realistic budget assessment to clear the R&D risks and complete the MICE Construction effort, while limiting negative impacts on the broader MAP effort

• Our model is to specify a roughly flat MICE construction profile to determine a realistic schedule

May 7-8, 2013


U.S. Budget: Assumptions• What is included (or not):

– Construction budget explicitly includes• ED&I for prototype and production hardware• Fabrication and assembly costs for prototype and production hardware• Initial acceptance testing of all components• Support for component integration into US systems• Support for system-level hardware integration and commissioning at RAL

– Top-level U.S. Project Management costs (PMO + L1 management support) are born by the Program and not included in MICE costs

– MICE-related hardware tests in the MuCool Test Area are treated as MTA costs (a different portion of the MAP budget)

– Experimental support budget treated separately from construction

• Focus initially on Base Costs (w/escalation) and compare with UK plan (which is also a base cost plan)

May 7-8, 2013


US Effort Base Cost w/Escalation

May 7-8, 2013

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

then

-FY

$K

US MICE WBS 5 Production Costs (13-05-01)

without contingency

13-05-02-MAP-WBS5-Only.mpp


0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19

then

-FY

$K

US MICE WBS 5 Production Costs (13-05-01)

with <contingency> = 39%

without contingency

$ 4 M/yr limit w/contingencystretchout adds another 1.9%

Now Add Contingency and Stretch

May 7-8, 2013

13-05-02-MAP-WBS5-Only.mpp

Almost achieves FY18 completion – BUT…

23,918 K$

17,716 K$

24,383 K$

Sums of then-FY K$

“production” contingency


US Program Subject to R&D Risk

May 7-8, 2013

• US Risk Register: ~$10M of active R&D-related risk• Plot also shows funding concept for experimental effort to

ensure success (further collab/agency discussion needed)

0

500

1,000

1,500

2,000

2,500

3,000

3,500

4,000

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

then

-FY

$K

US MICE Funding Profile

MICE Construction +Production Contingency

1/2 MICE R&D RISK(distributed flat in FY12 $K)

DOE MICE Operations andExperiment Support

NSF MICE Ops & Exp Support- proposed profile

Construction Total = 30,213 K$ in then-FY K$


Under These Assumptions…

Note: no approved NSF Funding for Ops & Exp beyond FY13

DOE Operations & Experimental support still under development

May 7-8, 2013

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

FY13 FY14 FY15 FY16 FY17 FY18 FY19 FY20 FY21

then

-FY

$K

US MICE Funding Profile

NSF MICE Ops & Exp Support- proposed profile

DOE MICE Operations andExperiment Support

1/2 MICE R&D RISK(distributed flat in FY12 $K)

MICE Construction +Production Contingency

Implications for both budget profile envelope

and duration of experiment


U.S. Budget: Ongoing Effort• Continue to work towards

– Improved budget estimates– Assessing completeness of proposed work– Identification of any missed contingency items

• An evolving discussion with DOE on budget profile– Incorporating a significant ramp upwards in overall MAP budget for next 2 years– Have focused primarily on construction project cost so far– Contingencies need to be properly included in plan– Need to guarantee working experimental configurations– Need to determine a realistic experimental schedule and provide the

necessary support for a viable and efficient experimental effort

• Continue to review scope (but contingency is the cost driver)– Step IV – muons interacting with materials (absorbers)– Technology Demonstrations (RFCC Modules)– Step V (partial cooling cell, with some inherent beam optics limitations) versus– Step VI (full cooling cell enabling detailed beam characterizations)

May 7-8, 2013


Achieving Success with MICE• To help enable the International High Energy Physics

Community to properly consider a Muon Accelerator option, it is crucial to provide MICE results in timely fashion– MAP would like to have these results in hand before the end of

this decade– But it requires a realistic assessment of cost and risk implications

to the schedule

• The current exercise represents an important step to achieving this goal– Constructive feedback from this committee is crucial– Developing a coordinated plan with the funding agencies to

effectively manage the schedule and contingencies as we move forward is also required

May 7-8, 2013


BACKUP SLIDES

May 7-8, 2013


The Muon Accelerator Program Timeline

May 7-8, 2013

At Fermilab, critical physics production could build on

Phase II of Project X


Muon Accelerator Program Org Chart (L1 and L2)

May 7-8, 2013

MICE Resource Loaded Schedule Review (RAL) May 7-8, 201325

MIC

E &

MIC

E-s

uppo

rtin

g ac

tiviti

es in

blu

e


Major Risk Milestones

May 7-8, 2013

muon ionization cooling experiment: u.s. muon accelerator program perspective and approach mark...

Documents

mice resource

muon accelerator facilities

muon accelerators

muon colliderit

schedule review ral2map

schedule review ral5u

schedule review ral3map

schedule review ral7p